• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US successfully tests anti-missile shield

You are aware that there are other classes of offensive missiles which aren't ICBMs? (Like, oh, the ones targeted in the tests?) Or perhaps you're using "ICBM" to mean something that it doesn't?

The ones in the tests are meant to represent a stage of the ICBM, not the entire ICBM. Or did you not know that? :2wave:

The other classes are already taken care of by systems that were developed a long time ago.
 
lol. I noticed you deliberately ignored the rest of my post.
I only responded to the part that was necessary to respond to.

Your entire argument is based on comments, many comments made during bad economies. Care to look at the statements made by the past Iranian president during the economic boom?
Given that he is not in power.... no. Irrelevant.
So... you;re arguing that we should not take AchmedJihad at his word, that his rhetoric is just some delusional smoke screen?
Seems to support the 'unstable' argument.

You have completely failed to understand the notion of political unity within a country and how leaders make statements to maintain that.
Hardly.

We do know that the primary goal of both regimes is to stay n power. Nothing they have ever done has ever risked that. Why would they use a weapon that would in turn make them into radioactive ash?
Because, according to the beliefs so very openly expressed, it is the right thing to do.
You seem to think that the Jihadist is worried about his own survival or the survival of his 'people'. There are mounds of evidence to oppose this.

The problem with North Korea getting a weapon isn't that they will use it. It is the proliferation as their economy is in the tank. Iran's problem is not that they will use it, it is that everyone else in the middle east will want one as a deterrent.
If no one is going to use these weapons, why/how is proliferation an issue?
 
I do have to say its nice to see that the opposition to the NMD has moved away from "it will never work".

No one said it will never work. Throw enough money at it (like you guys are implicitly arguing) and it will eventually work. True the costs may top out at $500 billion, but hey, throw enough money at it and it will work! Well, it will work at least in hitting some of them (whether or not it's the one with the warhead, that's questionable). An intelligent enemy will simply use countermeasures to by pass the system. I have yet to see any of you offer an explanation to get around the Mylar balloon decoy problem. Hell, I'm the only one who had an counter counter measure, but there's a reason the US abandoned nuclear interceptors long ago.

The issue is allocation of resources away from likely methods we'll be attacked by. If you bothered to pay any attention you would have noticed this long ago.

Explain to me why we should spend billions on a system that does not defend us from the most likely source of attack and when the current system of MAD is functioning well.

Furthermore, explain to me why we don't spend missile defense on securing fissile material. We could secure ALL of the fissile material on the planet for much cheaper then the missile defense. Without fissile material, there is no nuke. At best they could use a chemical or biological weapon, but we'd in turn react causing huge damage to them. MAD still functions.

You guys are pushing for the most expensive, least applicable system rather then for the cost effective system that covers the vast majority of problems.

That sounds like a big liberal welfare system to me.
 
That sounds like a big liberal welfare system to me.

Sure it does when caricature and misrepresent the arguments of those you disagree with.

'Nuff said.

Carry on.
 
I only responded to the part that was necessary to respond to.

Aka, things you don't like.

Given that he is not in power.... no. Irrelevant.
So... you;re arguing that we should not take AchmedJihad at his word, that his rhetoric is just some delusional smoke screen?

So no, you have no intention of learning a damn thing about your enemy's history. That's pretty sad. No, we shouldn't take him at his word. When the economy in Iran went down the toliet, guess what he started to say? When the economy was booming in Iran, the last president had virtually no similar statements and even argued that Jews were equal citizens. Wow. Blaming an outside aggressor is the oldest trick in the book of political unity. We saw this thousands of years ago. Why people can't figure this out, well, I blame the American public education system.


lol. Says the one who doesn't even want to look at history.

Because, according to the beliefs so very openly expressed, it is the right thing to do.

Yet their actions since the Revolution has always sought to maintain Mullah power in Iran. Explain to me why they would instantly change that long standing policy. The whole notion that the Mullahs are incapable of reason is just laughable. People who decide projects on Cost Vs Benefit analysis can't be reasonable?

hahahahaha. Look at what they do. Not what they say.

You seem to think that the Jihadist is worried about his own survival or the survival of his 'people'. There are mounds of evidence to oppose this.

You seem to think that all Jihadists are the same. Care to point out a single example where the Mullahs risked their own lives and their own power instead of sending someone else to die in their stead? You won't because it doesn't exist. Iran has a long standing policy of sending their people to die for their causes. To fight proxy wars and have others die for them. They never, ever risk their own lives or their own power. A simple study of Iran would tell you that. But you are against looking at Iran's history. You said it yourself.

If no one is going to use these weapons, why/how is proliferation an issue?

Incorrect. No state is going to use those weapons. That doesn't mean North Korea won't sell the plans and actual weapons to god knows who. Furthermore, proliferation to states increases risks of more weapons being developed and more highly enriched fuel being made. That can be stolen as evident by tests on our OWN facilities.
 
No one said it will never work
You havent been around very long, then.

Throw enough money at it (like you guys are implicitly arguing) and it will eventually work. True the costs may top out at $500 billion...
Over the 50 years it weill take to reach that amount, that's not all that much.

...but hey, throw enough money at it and it will work!
You disagree with the liberals' approach to social problems as applied to the defense of the union? Why?

Well, it will work at least in hitting some of them (whether or not it's the one with the warhead, that's questionable). An intelligent enemy will simply use countermeasures to by pass the system. I have yet to see any of you offer an explanation to get around the Mylar balloon decoy problem.
That's because you arent familiar enough with the operation of the NMD and how it engages targets. Simply put, if it cannot tell if a target is real or not, it shoots at it. This means it might engage mylar balloons, but it alos means it wont not engage a real warhead.

(Note that a balloon will quickly accelerate when it interfaces with the top of the atmosphere, giving away its nature and allowing the BMS to ignore it)

Hell, I'm the only one who had an counter counter measure, but there's a reason the US abandoned nuclear interceptors long ago.
Yes. Its messy,
Aside from that -- you REALLY think you're on the leading edge of missile defense theory?

The issue is allocation of resources away from likely methods we'll be attacked by. If you bothered to pay any attention you would have noticed this long ago.
Explain to me why we should spend billions on a system that does not defend us from the most likely source of attack and when the current system of MAD is functioning well.
Threat A necessitates Defense A
Threat B necessitates Defense B
That Threat B exists is no way invalidates the necessity of Defense A.
That Defense A does not affect Threat B is in no way an argument against Defense A

Furthermore, explain to me why we don't spend missile defense on securing fissile material. We could secure ALL of the fissile material on the planet for much cheaper then the missile defense. Without fissile material, there is no nuke. At best they could use a chemical or biological weapon, but we'd in turn react causing huge damage to them. MAD still functions.
See above. Add Threat C, Defense C.
 
lol. Coming from someone who declares people he disagrees with "liars" when he can't deal with their arguments.


There you go, again...liar.

Please explain how substantively addressing arguments point-by-pint constitutes not dealing with an argument?

Well?

Dismissed.
 
Aka, things you don't like.
Why would I responde to the things that I agree with or that are irrelevant?

So no, you have no intention of learning a damn thing about your enemy's history. That's pretty sad. No, we shouldn't take him at his word.
And thus, this supports the "unstable" argument. Thanks.

lol. Says the one who doesn't even want to look at history.
Hardly.

Yet their actions since the Revolution has always sought to maintain Mullah power in Iran. Explain to me why they would instantly change that long standing policy.
You dont understand the policy, and how 'survival' fits in.
Survival is a means to an end -- one bides his time in order to amass the means necessary to strike an effective blow to the infidel. In this case, it means acquiring nuclear weapons to destory Israel.
The ends are all that matter.

The whole notion that the Mullahs are incapable of reason is just laughable.
See above. A means to an end.

You seem to think that all Jihadists are the same.
Hmm. Create a strawman and ask me to support it.
Very unclever.

Incorrect. No state is going to use those weapons. That doesn't mean North Korea won't sell the plans and actual weapons to god knows who. Furthermore, proliferation to states increases risks of more weapons being developed and more highly enriched fuel being made. That can be stolen as evident by tests on our OWN facilities.
So, the danger IS that someone will use them.
Make up your mind.
 
You havent been around very long, then.

Define "never work." What's the context?

Over the 50 years it weill take to reach that amount, that's not all that much.

Good god. You sound like a fiscal liberal.

You disagree with the liberals' approach to social problems as applied to the defense of the union? Why?

Because throwing money at anything is rarely the solution. One must always do cost vs benefit. You people have no problem throwing money at defense projects no matter how costly. Fiscal conservatives you are not.

That's because you arent familiar enough with the operation of the NMD and how it engages targets. Simply put, if it cannot tell if a target is real or not, it shoots at it. This means it might engage mylar balloons, but it alos means it wont not engage a real warhead.

LOL. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. A Mylar balloon, or to be more accurate, dozens if not hundreds would be released while in space. Furthermore they would all clump together in a giant crowd, essentially sending back a radar picture that looked like a giant blob. The interceptor would be blind to which is which. By the time the warhead or MRVs return to earth, they are traveling well in excess of our capacity to hit them with the missile shield. Then it falls to patriot batteries and us hoping they don't air burst. You forget we planned this against the Soviets.

(Note that a balloon will quickly accelerate when it interfaces with the top of the atmosphere, giving away its nature and allowing the BMS to ignore it)

Good thing they aren't released there. This is fundamental reason why we are focusing everything on hitting during the rise. Once it gets to space, we're royally ****ed outside of a nuclear interceptor. And the current rates of hitting a bad.

Yes. Its messy,
Aside from that -- you REALLY think you're on the leading edge of missile defense theory?

No, but far ahead of you. You forget that all sorts of former defense officials and missile experts are all saying this. WE cannot deal with the countermeasures.

I see you are again ignoring large parts of my post. Just because a threat exists doesn't mean you automatically defend against it. There is a threat of Alien invasion. Are we spending billions on that?

Deal with the problem we are most likely to face.

The BEST and CHEAPEST solution is to reduce fissile material around the world.

Explain to me how a ICBM without a nuke is a serious threat.
 
Why would I responde to the things that I agree with or that are irrelevant?

I asked you to use something other then superficial statements. You deliberately did not quote that part of my post. How many times have you taken politicians at face value? :rofl

And thus, this supports the "unstable" argument. Thanks.

Incorrect. You want it to, despite it not, therefore you think it does. Willful delusions.


Spamming aren't we?

You dont understand the policy, and how 'survival' fits in.
Survival is a means to an end -- one bides his time in order to amass the means necessary to strike an effective blow to the infidel. In this case, it means acquiring nuclear weapons to destory Israel.
The ends are all that matter.

If that was true, why didn't Iran use its huge amounts of chemical weapons to eliminate Israel?

See above. A means to an end.

So, explain to me, if the Mullahs had one goal of launching a few weapons at the US, not destroying it and be in turn completed annihilated, why are they spending money on hospitals, schools, all that stuff that doesn't achieve their goals?

Create a strawman and ask me to support it.
Very unclever.

Your argument was idiotic as it ignored the history of the Mullahs.

So, the danger IS that someone will use them.
Make up your mind.

Do you always argue this dishonestly?

Or do you not understand the difference between a state and a non-state actor?
 
Define "never work." What's the context?
You are aware of the subject at hand, right?

Good god. You sound like a fiscal liberal.
$10B/yr is not a lot of money, when you're talking about government spending.

Because throwing money at anything is rarely the solution.
Glad to see you oppose the usual liberal solution to social problems.

LOL. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. A Mylar balloon, or to be more accurate, dozens if not hundreds would be released while in space.
Interesting that those in charge of developing the NMD set the number of viable decoys per missile at 5. What do you know that those people do not?

Good thing they aren't released there.
No... but they eventually reach the interface, while the real RVs are still witnin the engagement cone of the NMD. This seperates the real from the fake targets.

I see you are again ignoring large parts of my post. Just because a threat exists doesn't mean you automatically defend against it. There is a threat of Alien invasion. Are we spending billions on that?
Red Herring. You assume that the missile threat to the US isnt legitimate.

Deal with the problem we are most likely to face.
See above.

The BEST and CHEAPEST solution is to reduce fissile material around the world.
And, you do this in countries that produce their own.... how?

Oh -- have you decided if proliferation is or is not a problem because of the potential use of the weapons?

Explain to me how a ICBM without a nuke is a serious threat.
You can put all kinds of thing into an RV. If not a nuke, then other WMDs.
 
I asked you to use something other then superficial statements. You deliberately did not quote that part of my post. How many times have you taken politicians at face value? :rofl
You dont like that I dont respond to the irrelevant sections of yoru posts.
Oh well.

Incorrect. You want it to, despite it not, therefore you think it does. Willful delusions.
Like this.

Spamming aren't we?
And this.

If that was true, why didn't Iran use its huge amounts of chemical weapons to eliminate Israel?
Cost/benefit. The damage they could do with non-nuclear weapons isnt enough.

So, explain to me, if the Mullahs had one goal of launching a few weapons at the US, not destroying it and be in turn completed annihilated, why are they spending money on hospitals, schools, all that stuff that doesn't achieve their goals?
The Jihad is multi-generational. Given that, you need to have a healty, edicated population base to pursue said Juhad.

Your argument was idiotic as it ignored the history of the Mullahs.
As the desert said to the grain of sand

Do you always argue this dishonestly?
See above.
 
Yes. Gaining control of US ICBMs and using them on US cities is the simplest and easiet option for terrorists who want to nuke US cities.
:roll:

You can be sarcastic but not realistic at all at the end. A spy (traitor) working for US and contacting the Chinese is the one who sold the atomic bomb blueprints to China some decades ago. Also, even very recently, there have been lots of US workers in key positions selling important information to other countries, this includes to "allies" like UK, Israel, etc.

This is not about gaining control of US ICBMs but it can be a case of causing errors on them. Look, the idea of a rogue nation attacking US with missiles is nuts, a complete fantasy.

To find terrorists capable to obtain an atomic nuke is more a James Bond movie than a realistic event, such is not impossible but is irrational, to send a nuke requires of great technology plus a sure headquaters location which will be detected right away as soon starts its construction.

This shield is not made to reject an attack from another country, the possibilities lean on mistakes from US missiles direction instead of coming from an Asian country. Look, US is protected by waters, this means by miles and miles of traveling in order to a missile to hit US from Asia or another part of the world.

China and Russia won't risk their own future trying to attack US with missiles. The only ones who won't risk anything are the assumed extraterestrials and they do not exist at least as enemies. So, the shield has been built as a way to prove that such a defense can be made, not so because US could be in a nuclear danger or similar from rogue nations or terrorist groups.

My first reaction when I saw the airplanes hitting the twin towers was laugh because I found out that terrorists are very smart to attack using unconventional weapons, don't you get it yet? They won't attack US with conventional arms, but they will use other methods which may include interference in the computer systems which requires of one traitor alone to create a big mess.
 
I do have to say its nice to see that the opposition to the NMD has moved away from "it will never work".

I can't speak for all opponents, but *I* am certainly not moving away from that position. You can make the NMD smarter, but our enemies will make their missiles smarter.

Goobieman said:
Of course, the arguments currently in place arent much better, but at least its detractors have decided that paerticular tack doesnt get them anywhere.

There are plenty of good arguments to oppose the NMD. Such as:

1. This doesn't reduce the risk of a nuclear attack since the main threat doesn't come from missiles in the first place. It is far more likely that we'll get nuked by terrorists or collapsing governments, than from a direct military confrontation with Russia or China or Iran.

2. Every dollar spent on the NMD is one dollar less that can be spent on something that will actually protect Americans.

3. The cost-benefit analysis is absurd. The marginal benefit of having a NMD (even if it worked perfectly) is simply not worth the marginal cost of building and maintaining it.

4. The National Missile "Defense" is actually an offensive weapons system, because if it worked it would eliminate the nuclear deterrent of other nations. Obviously this makes Russia jittery, as they may believe that it makes us more likely to launch a nuclear first-strike against them.

5. There is no need to make Russia (or other nuclear powers) panic and do something stupid. Russia is dying a slow demographic death as it is. If we simply wait them out for another 10-15 years, they'll be our friends again out of necessity.

6. It doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak for all opponents, but *I* am certainly not moving away from that position. You can make the NMD smarter, but our enemies will make their missiles smarter.
That doesnt in any way address the actual capability of the NMD -- that is, its ability to hit an incoming ICBM. There's NO support for the argument that it doesn't work.

There are plenty of good arguments to oppose the NMD. Such as:
1. This doesn't reduce the risk of a nuclear attack since the main threat doesn't come from missiles in the first place.
As posted before:
Threat A, Defense A...

2. Every dollar spent on the NMD is one dollar less that can be spent on something that will actually protect Americans
Same response as above.

3. The cost-benefit analysis is absurd. The marginal benefit of having a NMD (even if it worked perfectly) is simply not worth the marginal cost of building and maintaining it.
Really.
What's the cost of a 250kt weapon going off over Los Angeles?

4. The National Missile "Defense" is actually an offensive weapons system, because if it worked it would eliminate the nuclear deterrent of other nations.
False. The 50 or so warheads the NMD is designed to stop doesnt affect anyone's deterrence.

5. There is no need to make Russia (or other nuclear powers) panic and do something stupid.
See above.

6. It doesn't work.
There's no support for the argument that it doesn't work.
 
who knows, but we do know that missiles exist so don't u think it could be possibly beneficial to be able to shoot them down?

I know that guns exist but ive not brought myself a bullet proof vest
 
That doesnt in any way address the actual capability of the NMD -- that is, its ability to hit an incoming ICBM. There's NO support for the argument that it doesn't work.

As long as our competitors have anything CLOSE to technological parity with us (as in they aren't using swords and shields against our stealth bombers), their missile technology will always be a step ahead of our anti-missile technology. If you build a shield, someone will find a way to circumvent the shield...and they'll do it much more cheaply and quickly than it cost you to build the shield.

Goobieman said:
As posted before:
Threat A, Defense A...

That is idiotic. By the same logic, why don't we just dump a hundred billion dollars in some sturdy shields for our troops, in case our opponents charge us with swords?

This is especially moronic coming from you, given your stance on gun control. Why not ban AK-47s? Sure, criminals might just use M16s instead, but "Threat A, Defense A." :roll:

Goobieman said:
Really.
What's the cost of a 250kt weapon going off over Los Angeles?

Incorrect measurement of the benefit of a missile defense shield. You must weigh the probability of that happening without a missile defense shield versus the probability of that happening WITH a missile defense shield, then multiply the difference by the cost of that happening.

The costs outweigh the benefits of the NMD by several orders of magnitude.

Goobieman said:
False. The 50 or so warheads the NMD is designed to stop doesnt affect anyone's deterrence.

Really. Then why are we building it again?
 
Last edited:
As long as our competitors have anything CLOSE to technological parity with us (as in they aren't using swords and shields against our stealth bombers), their missile technology will always be a step ahead of our anti-missile technology
Our competitors are the likes of N Korea and Iran.

That is idiotic.
No, that's reality. There are many threats, and many defenses.

Incorrect measurement of the benefit of a missile defense shield.
The 'benefit' is that he have the ability to protect US cities from a limited nuke strike. The effective measure of this then is the loss of one of those cities.

The costs outweigh the benefits of the NMD by several orders of magnitude.
In order for this to be true, you have to show the cost of a US city - I choose LA- taking a 250kt airburst.

Really. Then why are we building it again?
I'm -really- getting tired of having to explain the expressed purpose behind building a NMD. You people REALLY need to take some time and educate yourselves before enganing in these conversations.

The NMD is intended to stop a limited ICBM strike from a 'rogue state' such as NK or Iran. It is intended, with its 250 interceptors, to stop up to 50 incoming warheads, each with 5 'advanced' decoys.

This does NOT affect the Russian nuclear deterrent.
 
I'm -really- getting tired of having to explain the expressed purpose behind building a NMD. You people REALLY need to take some time and educate yourselves before enganing in these conversations.

This seems to be the modus operandi of many posters here. They'll engaged in a discussion and continue debating despite not possessing even a rudimentary familiarity with the issue at hand.

And once presented with such a condemnation of their posts as disohonest their take offense.

Weird.
 
Negotiate through strength. Putin is here to stay and he is mad.
 
"I first became aware of the communist threat to our precious bodily fluids durng the physical act of love."
 
Russia will not enter or incite arms race. It will be building its military as it sees it to suite needs and available means.

The US seems to be going into the same Cold war/arms race spiral.

It will not change Russia’s spending.

Russia is feeling comfortably about missile defense money wise and technology wise. There is nothing even in the drawing that can be a defense from Russian missile technology.


Russia is feeling comfortably about billions spent on stealth technology money wise and technology wise, as it has full capability to shoot down stealth technology cheap.

Russia and the US have the same enemies on the global scheme.

Iran has no missile system that can reach any EU country, except for some parts of Italy and only according to unconfirmed claims.

These are the facts. Chew on them.
 
Back
Top Bottom